The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal defamation proceeding against Republic Media Network editor Abhishek Kapoor and reporter Bittu Chowdhury, holding that the complaint did not satisfy the basic legal requirements of defamation and that the Magistrate’s orders suffered from procedural defects.
Justice Uday Kumar passed the order on September 16, 2026, allowing two criminal revision applications arising from the same complaint case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from a telephone conversation on January 27, 2022, between Republic Bangla reporter Bittu Chowdhury and Kabir Suman concerning a news reaction relating to the late singer Sandhya Mukherjee.
According to the order, Suman reacted to the call using Bengali slangs and expletives. Two days later, he published a Facebook apology acknowledging his outburst. After an audio recording of the conversation circulated, a legal notice was issued and the Magistrate subsequently took cognizance of the complaint and summoned the accused under Sections 499, 500 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court noted that while the reporter was accused of recording and circulating the conversation, Abhishek Kapoor was personally implicated despite the record showing that the conversation was never aired, broadcast or telecast by Republic Bangla or the Republic Media Network.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined whether reproducing the complainant’s own words could amount to an actionable “imputation” under Section 499 IPC.
It relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar, observing that a faithful publication of what actually transpired, without an independent malicious or fabricated imputation, would not satisfy the essential ingredients of defamation. It also referred to earlier Calcutta High Court decisions concerning faithful reporting.
The Court further considered Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC, which requires the alleged imputation to lower a person’s reputation in the estimation of others.
“A person cannot be defamed in his own eyes, and the statutory threshold mandates that the imputation must lower reputation in the estimation of others.”
The Court found that the complainant’s initial deposition contained no independent third-party witness stating that his moral or intellectual character had been lowered in their estimation.
The High Court also examined the manner in which the Magistrate proceeded against the petitioners. It found that the cognizance order dated May 19, 2022 was passed using a printed pro forma, contrary to the requirement that judicial discretion be properly recorded.
The subsequent summoning order was also found deficient because it proceeded against vague designations without identifying the individual roles or specific participation of the accused.
The Court additionally noted that the petitioners resided beyond the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the mandatory inquiry contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing process had been bypassed.
Decision
The High Court held that continuation of the complaint proceedings against the two petitioners amounted to an abuse of the process of law. It allowed both criminal revision applications.
The Court quashed the entire Complaint Case No. 1286 of 2022, including the cognizance order dated May 19, 2022, the summoning order dated July 14, 2022 and all consequential orders against Abhishek Kapoor and Bittu Chowdhury.
The pending applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Abhishek Kapoor v. Kabir Suman; Bittu Roy Choudhury v. Kabir Suman
Case Number: C.R.R. 4680 of 2022 with C.R.R. 842 of 2023
Judge: Justice Uday Kumar
Decision Date: September 16, 2026
